Judges under popular consultation?
The political scene has just received a new script. President Claudia Sheinbaum has launched an idea that could change the rules of the game: review the possibility that judges, magistrates and ministers also face revocation of their mandate.
Currently, that mechanism only exists for the president. It is in article 35. Citizens can ask the INE to consult whether the head of the Executive should continue or not. But for the Judiciary, it does not apply.
“If someone wants to propose that they also have revocation, then it must be reviewed. The people rule,” said Sheinbaum.
The key is in that phrase. It is not a firm promise, but a door that is half-opened. An invitation to a huge constitutional debate. For this to happen, a reform promoted by Congress would be needed.
A change that requires an entire legislative act
Sheinbaum was clear: any modification would have to occur through a constitutional reform. It is not something that can be done by decree or with a simple speech.
He recalled that his original proposal for electoral reforms already spoke of strengthening participatory democracy. That initiative cannot be presented again this year, but it could be rescued after the next elections.
Meanwhile, he highlighted that there are already tools to monitor judges. The Judicial Disciplinary Court receives complaints and sanctions improper conduct.
“For the first time in history and as the only country in the world, we elect our judges, magistrates and ministers. Whether there should be a revocation or not, we must review it,” he said.
That’s the crux of the matter. If the people elected them (through Senate appointment), should the people be able to remove them? Sheinbaum puts the issue on the table without giving a definitive answer.
His position is one of analysis, not immediate action. He insists that everything must be analyzed within the existing legal framework. But at the same time, it reinforces its central narrative: citizen participation must be the heart of the system.
This movement is not coincidental. In the grand theater of national politics, placing this idea in public debate has consequences. It defines the terms of the conversation about justice and power for the coming months.
